Greg Paulson

Author’s note:

I borrowed a lot from Greg Johnson’s essay, Dealing with the Holocaust, which I think is important for a deeper understanding of the issue in general and for the position I advocate.

This may seem counter-intuitive, but a common mistake pro-White advocates make in combating White genocide is disputing the alleged facts of anti-White historical narratives.

By challenging the details of anti-White historical narratives, whether it be the Holocaust, the Black slave trade, genocide of American Indians or the various other alleged crimes committed by Whites against non-White populations, pro-White advocates are missing and implicitly accepting—the “premise: If white racism, nationalism, self-assertion, etc. led to the holocaust, the slave trade, Jim Crow, etc., then they are evil”—the underlying mechanism used to justify White genocide.

A far more effective point of argument is that regardless of the (alleged) crimes committed by White people in the past, they do not justify White genocide or any of its anti-White components.

Besides actually being a morally true statement, it registers as such to the vast majority of White people who were taught since childhood that, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” This is a far more effective approach than trying to convince someone to question the historical “facts” that influenced the formation of their worldview and/or understanding of the world. Greg Johnson points out that

As a general rule, moral and political arguments are more convincing than historical or scientific arguments, because the latter require specialized knowledge and lengthy explanations, whereas the former can be pithily formulated and draw upon common moral and political intuitions—and generally people’s moral intuitions are healthier than the toxic moral swill ladled out by the churches, schools, and mass media.

Not only is it more effective and efficient, but it also works for every anti-White historical narrative anti-Whites use, and any more that may be invented in the future. So not only does the average White person we are trying to reach not need to spend hours researching a specific historical instance to justify what he feels is right, it also inoculates him against all other and future attempts at manipulation via anti-White historical narratives.

Additionally—and this is important—it brings the focus back to the present genocidal conditions faced by our people. It interrupts the autistic proclivity to get lost in the past and technicalities that understandably bore and annoy most people. We cannot afford to get distracted and bogged down in the past and lengthy explanations. We need that lightning focus that clearly and succinctly defeats anti-White arguments, exposing them for what they are. If we can do that and simultaneously help inoculate White people against this powerful demoralizing weapon, why wouldn’t we?

It is our own people’s grandiose propensity toward collective guilt and self-abasement that is the ultimate source of the power anti-White narratives have over us. To borrow further from Greg Johnson’s excellent essay, attacking the moral dimension of the problem is like hacking at the trunk of a tree, whereas revising historical narratives is akin to merely trimming the branches.

Once we have stopped the genocide of our people, our historians can determine what was true in the past. Until then, I encourage all of my fellow pro-White advocates to stop trimming the branches and join me in hacking away at the trunk.